Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1252 - HC - CustomsSmuggling - Gold - Illegal importation into India - Baggage rules - release of seized Gold - service of SCN not made to petitioner - seized Gold disposed off without issuing SCN to petitioner - HELD THAT:- The record reveals that the seizure of the gold was made on 5th January, 2015. An SCN had to be served within a period of six months thereafter in terms of Section 110 (2) read with Section 124 (1) (a) of the Act. This is a mandatory requirement as has been explained in several decisions of this Court including Iqbal Hussain v. Union of India [ 2017 (3) TMI 704 - DELHI HIGH COURT ]. It was further explained in Chaganlal Gainmull v. Collector of Central Excise [ 1989 (11) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT ] that if the SCN was not issued within six months from the date of seizure the consequence would be that the person from whom the gold was seized would become entitled to its return - Even the adjudication order in the present case would be illegal as the Commissioner passed the same ex parte without the SCN having been actually served upon the present Petitioner at all in the present case. The second illegality committed is the disposal of the seized gold without notice having been issued to the Petitioner - There is no explanation offered by the Respondents as to why they were constrained to dispose of the seized gold, when it was neither perishable nor hazardous. Also, there is no answer why it had to be disposed of without notice being issued to the person from whom it was seized. This is irrespective of whether the SCN was served or not - In the present case with the seized material not being perishable, being gold bars, there was no reason for the Respondents to have hurriedly disposed it off and that too without notice to the Petitioner. When it was plain that even the SCN was not served upon the Petitioner, there was no reason to proceed with disposal of the seized gold without notice. As far as the return of the seized gold is concerned, the Court has been presented with a fait accompli, with the Respondents already having hurriedly disposed of the said gold. Mr. Satish Aggarwala on instructions states that the proceeds collected during the auction were equal to the value of the gold being an amount of ₹ 93,34,783/- - Court accordingly directs that the Respondents will refund to the Petitioner the sum of ₹ 93,34,783/- (or the precise amount recovered by the Respondents by auction/sale proceedings) not later than 30th June 2019 failing which the Respondents will pay simple interest at 6% p.a. on the said sum for the period of delay. Petition allowed.
|